Opinions vary. And you are welcome to your opinion.

Hmmm. WMD�s not dangerous. Hmmm, interesting �perspective�.

Once again, opinions vary. I know I�m not going to change your mind, so I�ll just leave it at I know a bit more about the subject than you seem to. So, you are more than welcome to your opinion, and I to mine.

Lets see, I have a job. That job is to do my very best to safeguard the flying public. I have a bunch of equipment, training, and experience to assist me in doing that job, as well as the full resources of the federal government to assist. I am one, and only one, part of the system that keeps the flying public safe. There are many thousands of us who do the same job, and many more thousands who provide support in one form or another to that very same end.

I am proud of who I am and what I do. I know I make a difference, despite the inane and ignorant rantings of some of the public. I like the people I work with, and the passengers I work for. I genuinely enjoy meeting them, talking with them, interacting. There is nothing in any of that to be afraid of. Nor am I giving up any liberties that any other employee of any kind gives up. I don�t need to �suck the marrow� out of life, l prefer to enjoy life rather than struggle with it. I don�t see it as a fight but as an adventure. I�m happy with what I do, and that is all that really matters.

Oh I agree with you, I doubt that those items will ever be allowed. I was doing a �what if�, which seems to be a part of the whole TS/S skills requirement. After all, �what if� gets used here so often they should change the name of the forum.

You were not asking for facts. I was responding to the posted question. What if �intent� was all we focused on? �Which is more important� was not asked. If knowing intent is all we need to ensure the safety of the flying public then why not allow bombs and guns through the checkpoint? Without the intent to use them they pose no danger. Right?

No, Ron look at the title- Items OR Intent- Where is the danger? I think that OR questions which is more important. Focus, Ron, I think that you can do it.

Pick one and run with it.

It's funny, though, that you've confused your opinions and fears with facts.




First of all, WMD has a very different definition than a shoe box sized bomb that someone could smuggle in hand-carried luggage, clothing or a body cavity. Second, as we found out from the last circus, the government has propensity to lie about the presence of WMDs, so it would follow that they would lie about other explosives. Third, if terrorists actually had their hands on real WMDs in the United States, they'd be taking out targets from safe distances with military grade hardware, not trying to smuggle C4 in a pair of loafers. And finally, the TSA has never caught a single person in any of its screenings carrying a bomb through a checkpoint. If attempts were being made, I'd have expected it to be all over every major news outlet in the English speaking world at least once in the last 9 years.

So yeah, I'm going with 'the Bogeyman is made of paper.'

You certainly do know a lot about fear and paranoia.



Nothing you do keeps me safe in any way, and even if it did, I wouldn't want you doing any of it. Do you understand that at all? You are part of a giant work-fare organization (and the fact that the stimulus money is being used to pay for all this 'equipment, training and experience demonstrates that) which is designed to provide the illusion of security to people who rarely venture outside their own home towns, but love to vote. It's also designed to line the pockets of people like Chertoff who have a major financial stake in setting up rules that cause the companies they hold stock in to make huge profits and pay out to shareholders.

I know you're proud of what you do. That's part of the problem that many people, including huge numbers of frequent flyers, have with the TSA and the people that it employs. The mindset that is selected for is so at odds with the American spirit that it's disheartening and embarrassing. It's time to dial the fear back a notch or three. There is absolutely no reason for us to have spent the last nine years on 'elevated' alert as a country, and even less for it to be constantly 'high' at airports.

I look forward to the day that ends and we go back to life as normal. That the scale goes down to green and eventually it's forgotten like the fallout shelters of the cold war. Do you have any desire at all for that day to come?

I have no problem at all with people who are licensed to conceal firearms doing so on an airplane. By and large, the people who possess such licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activities than even police officers.

Why should I be afraid of them?

One of my professors suggested that we send tired old men off to war, they wouldn't fight very hard. Funny back then.......

People with intent usually have some prior history, a back story if you will. That is why certain kinds of intelligence activity can be effective in stopping terrorist aviation events.

Items can be dangerous, even harmless looking items. And items can have a back story as well, chemical traces, a electronic trail.

I know that I am picking what seems to be two narrow paths, and asking you to choose and explore one of them. Please report your findings.

Thought TSA's job was to keep WEI off of airplanes.

http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/index.shtm

Sure don't see anything about keeping people safe.

Seems you may not be as well versed in your job as you think.

mozgytog you are my hero. I just wish when the media did interviews about "enhanced security measures" they would air some of your comments.

The terrorists of 9/11 used box cutters (significantly smaller than a shoe box) to turn aircraft into WMD’s.

Uhhh, yeah, right. Whatever. What color cool-aid is that you are drinking anyway?

So, a 737 traveling at 500+ mph into an occupied building and killing 3k or so people is not a WMD. Interesting theory.

Goodie for you. Ignorance is bliss they say.

What you want is only relevant to you. And your opinion about my job, while interesting, is nothing more than an opinion. You are more than welcome to it. I know better.

You and some other FF’s have problems with someone taking pride in their job? No, lets get it right, its you and some few FT’ers. Actual frequent fliers know what’s going on and why, and while they may not enjoy it they are least understand it.

And you know this because you have access to the intelligence reports, right? You have seen the details of all the plans the worlds terrorist organizations have, right? Or are you of the opinion that the folks that were planning the London Liquid bomb plot were just kidding around?

There is an old saying about the last people who ever want to go to war is the soldiers who must fight it. Think about that for a while.

Yes, they are. And I am one of those folks who carry a CCP, and I cannot advocate for a position such as yours. There are places where firearms just don’t belong, ever.

There you go thinking again.

Subjects have a different definitions depending upon the context. Be careful about absolutes. US Criminal law defines WMD among other things as:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Title 18 Chapter 44 section 921.
Any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2---a000-.html
Title 18 Chapter 113B section 2332a.
Use of weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.� A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction�
(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or
(4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government,
shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Offense by National of the United States Outside of the United States.� Any national of the United States who, without lawful authority, uses, or threatens, attempts, or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction outside of the United States shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(c) Definitions.� For purposes of this section�
(1) the term �national of the United States� has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(22));
(2) the term �weapon of mass destruction� means�
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term �property� includes all real and personal property.

You would be very surprised about the details of things both good and bad that never see the light of day.

FB

The point here is that crew and PAX are no longer going to comply with a hijacker's requests.



Ask the PAX that suffered severe burns while subduing the underpants bomber.

Poisonous gas? You should know that Part 121 aircraft have quick-donning full face masks with their own source of oxygen in the cockpit. What was it, the movie Airport '77 that had the the knock-out gas?

Any firearm or explosive capable of breaching a Kevlar door would more than likely cause enough damage to the point of making the aircraft incapable of being in controlled flight. But since you've come up with scenarios like a Hollywood script writer, here's an example of what the likely outcome would be like.

I agree, if they are given the chance to make that kind of choice. The most recent attempts have had absolutely no interaction with the passengers, they were just trying to destroy an aircraft. No negotiation involved in that. Pretty much leaves the passengers and crew out of the equation.

Yeah, he was a dumb terrorist. Really dumb. Stupid people tend to make those kinds of mistakes. Not all terrorists are stupid. @:-)

And these masks can detect poisonous gas and deploy all on their own? Ask the folks in Japan in the metro tunnel that were hit by Sarin gas how long it takes to kill.

You might want to read up a bit more on Kevlar. Its not the absolute protection you seem to think it is.

Anyway, given the ease of the production of some poisonous gases, many explosives, and a whole host of other lethal little items it does not take a Hollywood writer to come up with things. And not everything Hollywood comes up with is impossible.

But I�m curious about something. You and others here keep tossing out all these various theories about buying off airport employee�s, TSA employee�s, etc, isn�t that even more of a �Hollywood� kind of thing than what I have sketched out? After all, the dead in the Tokyo (IIRC) subway Sarin attack were not actors. They were nowhere near Hollywood.

When talking about weapons, I stick to the technical definitions rather than those crafted by legislators with no subject matter knowledge. That's why I don't call an AR-15 an assault weapon, despite it having been defined as one by the 1994 Firearms Act.

Politicians like to stretch a definition until it is meaningless. Under the statutes you cited, the gas can for my lawn mower could easily be classified as a WMD.

Three errors in such a short sentence. I'm not the one that blindly accepts whatever the cult leader says, which is what the reference to 'drinking the Kool-Aid' is all about. Questioning authority is the exact opposite of 'drinking the Kool-Aid'. It's spelled Kool-Aid, which is also inaccurate since the powdered drink mixed with cyanide at Jonestown was actually Flavor Aid.

I admit that it has a lot more flair than a Buick traveling at 40+ miles per hour through a farmers' market, but it's the same principle and I wouldn't call either one of them a WMD since neither are specifically designed to cause destruction or loss of life. In fact, billions of dollars are spent engineering both airplanes and cars to not kill people.

You seem like an exceedingly happy guy.

Are you now trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is not a frequent flyer?

How often do you fly, Ron?

I know that you don't. Being a TSO doesn't mean you have any kind of security clearance at all. Regardless of what your employer calls 'SSI', it's not the same as seeing classified items. That is all I will say on the subject, so trying to goad me into more will not work.

You are proud to be part of an organization that views itself as 'on the front line' in the 'war on terror' and you're lecturing me about wanting to go to war? I think the cognitive dissonance in that might actually give me a migraine.

If firearms don't ever belong in airports or airplanes, why do police and air marshals have them there? Statistically those who hold concealed carry licenses are far less likely to commit a violent crime, and thirteen times less likely to commit a non violent crime than non-licensees. Concealed carry licensees are also five times less likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person than a police officer is. If we were really trying to keep out the greater danger, we wouldn't let cops have guns in airports.

That is why context matters. In a legal matter and arena it doesn't matter how you wish to categorize anything. Only the legal definition is going to matter. So when you talk about a shoe box sized device it doesn't matter what you wish the technical definitions is if it contains more than 4 oz of explosive the legal system can chose to file the charge as a WMD. That is just the way the law is written because you don't agree doesn't change the law.

FB

Letting morons with know subject matter knowledge write laws that misuse technical terms to the point that an LP cylinder you can buy at any hardware store can be classified as a WMD if some prosecutor gets a bug up his butt is a problem, but not one of context.

Misuse of a term by legislators is a poor reason to change the meaning of a word, especially since they have a tendency to write laws in such a vague and ill-defined manner as to make criminals of everyone.

Actually, the TSA has been starting to share intel with their employees in an ill-advised move to improve their self-esteem. An unintended circumstance was the fact that quite a few had things show up in the expanded background check that made them ineligible, and were subsequently terminated. Whoopsie! A few more "bad apples" are no longer on the government payroll. ^

Let us know when a smart one shows up because the current batch seem to be competing for Darwin Awards.


Was there a MacGyver episode where he figured out a way to get knock-out gas into the ac packs of an aircraft? I guess it reveals something about my need to be "entertained" because I can't watch a movie without noticing all the vast technical inaccuracies.

I'm reminded of the time you said "Some air crew are allowed, even mandated, to carry firearms on their aircraft." I asked you what Part 121 carrier mandates their crews carry firearms, and your response was "Part 121 of what?"



Okay, so once again, trying to breach an armored cockpit door with explosive force is going to end very badly for someone who thinks they'll have a flyable aircraft. If someone were to plink away at it with a firearm, the pilots would initiate evasive maneuvers that would make the worst turbulence you've ever been in seem like a ride on the Tilt-A-Whirl at Kennywood before immediately landing.

Looks like Occam's Razor was confiscated voluntarily surrendered. With all the Isolated Incidents� involving bad apples, it would be a lot easier to do than replicating something that happened in a Hollywood action flick.

Bully for you. You choose to define things however you prefer. Another way to put it is that you rationalize your position. Hey, cool, go for it.

Well, so far you have provided us with nothing that would classify you as a �subject matter expert� of any kind, so I hope you don�t mind if the rest of us stick with what we know. Your opinion is certainly valued, but by me not so much.

[sarcasm]Excuse me while I bow down to your abilities as an internet English monitor. [/sarcasm]

You are drinking the �cool-aid� of the less than informed folks here. You can take the party line as it is proposed by some of the less than rational members if you choose, after all it IS your right, but your credibility will be tied directly to theirs. At best that makes it questionable.

The purpose to which it is put is what determines if it is a weapon or not.
Did I say that? Hmmm, don�t remember that, care to quote it for me? A link would be useful.

No, there are any number of poll�s out there that support what I have said. Feel free to look them up.

Lol, appearances can be deceiving. You �know�, ROTFLMAO. On the main TSA employee web page is a link to the �The latest unclassified intelligence products produced by the Office of Intelligence. � Every TSA employee has access to this, not just I.

I can only hope. Just a bit of an FYI for you, I am a Veteran. An active duty Veteran.

I don�t make the rules, someone far far up the chain of command does. I presented you with my opinion, nothing more. But I will be happy to provide you with a link to some information about Concealed Carry. I am a member, maybe you are as well, but somehow I doubt it.

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com